Who’s interpretation is true?

[bbyrd009]

But some verses cannot have more than one meaning, unless we twist what the verse says:
John 14:15

The only way to get around John 14:15 is to twist what is plainly says.

So, you could not apply your theory to ALL verses, only some, and they aren't many...and do not refer to salvation. Salvation verses are very plain.

fwiw rather than make this new law, that you have just proposed, imo it is better to let people be there, so that they might reveal themselves to you, just like a little kid might reveal some area of ignorance without being judged. We generally do not castigate the child, but we instead recognize that that is where the child is mentally/spiritually, and work with them with that understanding. And this is not even really broaching how a foot and a hand, parts of a body, might not necessarily agree about some specific, yet still be "in agreement."

 

[OzSpen]

I see what you mean.
But some verses CAN have, legitimately, different meanings which could be explained.
I like to refer to John 3:5.
Does the water refer to Baptism or Natural Childbirth?
A case could be made for either by persons with initials after their names.

But some verses cannot have more than one meaning, unless we twist what the verse says:
John 14:15

The only way to get around John 14:15 is to twist what is plainly says.

So, you could not apply your theory to ALL verses, only some, and they aren't many...and do not refer to salvation. Salvation verses are very plain.

GodsGrace,

I'm discipling a new Christian in his 40s and he wanted me to work through the book of John with him. We are in ch 3 at the moment.

This is John 3:5 (ESV): 'Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God'. This is my understanding of what 'water and the Spirit' means (with help from D A Carson):

‘Born of water and the Spirit’ (v. 5). What does it mean? If we look in the context, could we get a hint? ‘Flesh gives birth to the flesh’ (v 6) could point to water as physical birth vs spiritual birth. The meaning of the phrase has generated lots of possible meanings, such as:

• It describes two births, physical vs spiritual birth. But there are no ancient sources that present the view that natural birth is from water. But the context is talking about one birth, ‘from above’, ‘born again’.

• Some think ‘water’ refers to Christian baptism. Such a view would not be relevant to Nicodemus (see John 3:10 and Jesus’ taking the Jews to task that they didn’t know what he was talking about). There is the added problem that baptismal regeneration (necessity of baptism for salvation) is not taught elsewhere in the NT – except in the non-canonical Mark 16:16). There is no believe + baptism to be saved. John 3:16 is clear: ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life’. So here in John 3, we have confirmation that salvation is available to ‘whoever believes in [Jesus]’ and they ‘shall not perish but have eternal life’. It does not state that salvation is for those who believe and are baptised.

• Some want this ‘water’ to refer to John the Baptist’s baptism, a baptism of repentance.

• ‘Jesus is arguing against the ritual washings of the Essenes’ – a conservative group that promoted rituals. This is the group associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

• The most satisfactory conclusion, in my view, is that ‘born of water and the Spirit’ is influenced by three factors: (1) It is a parallel meaning to ‘born from above’ and so only one birth is in view – the born again, new birth. (2) A unity of water-spirit; (3) Jesus criticises Nicodemus (in 3:10) for not understanding these things, especially since he was ‘Israel’s teacher’. Note, Ezekiel 36:25-27. Nicodemus should have known this Scripture that demonstrates cleansing from impurity and transformation of the heart.

• Therefore, ‘born of water and spirit’ (drop the capital S) points to ‘a new begetting, a new birth that cleanses and renews, the eschatological cleansing and renewal promised by the Old Testament prophets’ (Carson 1991:195; many of the above points came from Carson 1991:191-195).

Oz

Works consulted
Carson, D A 1991. The Gospel according to John. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

 

[OzSpen]

I'm sure you understand what I was saying in the above post. Without having to go into full detail. However, please feel free to correct...

John 3:36 confirms that eternal life begins when one believes in Jesus Christ for salvation. 'Actual salvation' (your words) begins at that moment. There is no future time that I need to wait for to receive salvation. I have it here and now and it's 'eternal'.

What kind of salvation comes at death or at Christ's second coming?

Each person’s eternal destiny, either reward or condemnation, will be based on what was done in this life (Matt.7:21–23;13:36–43; John5:28–29). Jesus, moreover, taught that each human’s destiny is fixed at death; for example, in His story of Lazarus, who was eternally in paradise, and the rich man, who was eternally in torment (Luke16:19–31). Finally, the description of the great white throne judgment in Revelation20:11–15 unquestionably indicates that our eternal destiny is based on our earthly life. In these and other passages, physical death marks the boundary of human opportunity to be saved [also see Heb 9:27] (Ronald H Nash).​

Oz

 

[bbyrd009]

there are no ancient sources that present the view that natural birth is from water.

i understand that this is a general consensus, but you have to admit it is a bit obtuse, at least from a pov

 

[Helen]

I did a google search on the word "Nehushtan" and kinda understand the concept.

I did not know until bbyrd009 mention in other threads that Nehushtan was worshipped by some..
That was news to me. I remember hearing that " Jesus Christ King Of The Jews" (that Pilot wrote above Jesus on the cross)... in Greek numerals was 13x13x13 = completeness of sin.
3 being the number of completeness, and 13 being the number of sin. Jesus became.

I can see why the brazen serpent could be worshipped...the 'likeness' of Christ...and they received their healing by "looking and living"...just a look would save them from the serpents poisonous bite.
Many "look and live" by looking at the cross...but they stop there...by just 'worship the icon' rather than follow hard after God Himself . Some just want the healing it brings but not the Healer Himself.
The more I dwell on it, the more I see in it .

 

[bbyrd009]

Nehushtan was worshipped by some..

ah, i may have given the wrong impression there, imo "all" or "virtually all" is a better perspective. Maybe "virtually all, at least at some point in their early walk," something like that. i worshipped Nehushtan for years, myself. "Up until that time, the Israelites had been burning incense to it."

imo a fair perspective might be any pastor that does not worship Nehushtan would have developed a sermon on Nehushtan, would have preached about Nehushtan. Hmm, there are some YT vids on the subject...don't know if any of them are by an ordained or not though

 

[Helen]

@bbyrd009 Oh thanks for that..

 

[GodsGrace]

GodsGrace,

I'm discipling a new Christian in his 40s and he wanted me to work through the book of John with him. We are in ch 3 at the moment.

This is John 3:5 (ESV): 'Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God'. This is my understanding of what 'water and the Spirit' means (with help from D A Carson):

‘Born of water and the Spirit’ (v. 5). What does it mean? If we look in the context, could we get a hint? ‘Flesh gives birth to the flesh’ (v 6) could point to water as physical birth vs spiritual birth. The meaning of the phrase has generated lots of possible meanings, such as:

• It describes two births, physical vs spiritual birth. But there are no ancient sources that present the view that natural birth is from water. But the context is talking about one birth, ‘from above’, ‘born again’.

• Some think ‘water’ refers to Christian baptism. Such a view would not be relevant to Nicodemus (see John 3:10 and Jesus’ taking the Jews to task that they didn’t know what he was talking about). There is the added problem that baptismal regeneration (necessity of baptism for salvation) is not taught elsewhere in the NT – except in the non-canonical Mark 16:16). There is no believe + baptism to be saved. John 3:16 is clear: ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life’. So here in John 3, we have confirmation that salvation is available to ‘whoever believes in [Jesus]’ and they ‘shall not perish but have eternal life’. It does not state that salvation is for those who believe and are baptised.

• Some want this ‘water’ to refer to John the Baptist’s baptism, a baptism of repentance.

• ‘Jesus is arguing against the ritual washings of the Essenes’ – a conservative group that promoted rituals. This is the group associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

• The most satisfactory conclusion, in my view, is that ‘born of water and the Spirit’ is influenced by three factors: (1) It is a parallel meaning to ‘born from above’ and so only one birth is in view – the born again, new birth. (2) A unity of water-spirit; (3) Jesus criticises Nicodemus (in 3:10) for not understanding these things, especially since he was ‘Israel’s teacher’. Note, Ezekiel 36:25-27. Nicodemus should have known this Scripture that demonstrates cleansing from impurity and transformation of the heart.

• Therefore, ‘born of water and spirit’ (drop the capital S) points to ‘a new begetting, a new birth that cleanses and renews, the eschatological cleansing and renewal promised by the Old Testament prophets’ (Carson 1991:195; many of the above points came from Carson 1991:191-195).

Oz

Works consulted
Carson, D A 1991. The Gospel according to John. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Hi Oz,
I always believed that water referred to birth because of the words
"that which is born of the flesh is flesh, but that which is born of spirit is spirit".

Also, BORN AGAIN. A person is born ONCE, and then they are born a second time... in the spirit.

Posting Ezekiel helped me, but does this not refer to baptism as it was understood in the O.T.??

IOW, the expression "born again" did not exist in Jesus' day. So wouldn't have to mean TWO births?? One in the flesh and one in the spirit...

Are we sure natural birth was not understood to include water?
There was always the loss of water with birth.

So you understand that the water refers to a cleansing?

 

[OzSpen]

Hi Oz,
I always believed that water referred to birth because of the words
"that which is born of the flesh is flesh, but that which is born of spirit is spirit".

Also, BORN AGAIN. A person is born ONCE, and then they are born a second time... in the spirit.

Posting Ezekiel helped me, but does this not refer to baptism as it was understood in the O.T.??

IOW, the expression "born again" did not exist in Jesus' day. So wouldn't have to mean TWO births?? One in the flesh and one in the spirit...

Are we sure natural birth was not understood to include water?
There was always the loss of water with birth.

So you understand that the water refers to a cleansing?

While the people of Jesus' day may not have known what 'born again' means, they knew what 'born from above/born anew' meant.

The NT Greek of John 3:3 is: τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν οὐ δύναται (tis gennethe anwthen ou dunatai) = Lit: one born again/anew/from above not able.

So born again = born from above, and I'm convinced the 'born of water and the spirit' uses water for spiritual cleansing, regeneration, which is affirmed by the Ezekiel passage.

See also, 'Born Again'.

Here in Brisbane, bed is calling at 12.07am on 20 Oct 2017. Night! Night!


Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

While the people of Jesus' day may not have known what 'born again' means, they knew what 'born from above/born anew' meant.

The NT Greek of John 3:3 is: τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν οὐ δύναται (tis gennethe anwthen ou dunatai) = Lit: one born again/anew/from above not able.

So born again = born from above, and I'm convinced the 'born of water and the spirit' uses water for spiritual cleansing, regeneration, which is affirmed by the Ezekiel passage.

See also, 'Born Again'.

Here in Brisbane, bed is calling at 12.07am on 20 Oct 2017. Night! Night!
View attachment 1200

Oz

OK.
But spiritual cleansing, regeneration...
wouldn't that fit with the water of baptism?
(I don't believe baptism is nec for salvation...regeneration).

R U nice and settled in?
Here it's dinner time right now...

 

[OzSpen]

OK.
But spiritual cleansing, regeneration...
wouldn't that fit with the water of baptism?
(I don't believe baptism is nec for salvation...regeneration).

R U nice and settled in?
Here it's dinner time right now...

GodsGrace,

In my understanding, there is no salvic cleansing in water baptism, but there is when one is 'born from above'.

I'm gradually settling in to the new villa, meeting new folks, most of whom are non-Christian and very secular Aussies. I love being in this environment because of the opportunities to sensitively share the Gospel.

I still have lots of boxes to unpack, including my 1600 books. Haven't even started on them. Big load of wash this morning and have to remember to take off line around 4pm. Hope it doesn't shower. We've had lots of rain this week. Some of Qld is in flood, like my hometown of Bundaberg (4 hours north of Brisbane).

Oz

 

[Jun2u]

Most current theologians and Bible students of today do not take into account the fundamental principles God had set forth when interpreting scriptures, specially those passages that are difficult to understand.

These principles are circumscribed in 2 Timothy 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 2:14.

It seems to me the subject in question is about unless a person is born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

In the context of John 3:5 God here is NOT speaking of water baptism, but both water and the spirit. Immediately we sense that God is speaking of being born in the spirit which is spiritual. I believe the key words to ponder here are water and spirit to get the setting.

If we are to understand the meaning of the word “water” and “spirit” in the context of John 3:5, we must first search the Scriptures to see how God uses these words elsewhere in scriptures.

John 7:38-39 reads:
38 “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water .” This is the living water of the Gospel. When we witness to an unsaved person it's like the Gospel is flowing out of our belly as living water, full of power.

39 “(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified).”

Further reading could be found in Ezekiel 36:25-27.

I hope this helps.

To God Be The Glory

 

[GodsGrace]

GodsGrace,

In my understanding, there is no salvic cleansing in water baptism, but there is when one is 'born from above'.

I'm gradually settling in to the new villa, meeting new folks, most of whom are non-Christian and very secular Aussies. I love being in this environment because of the opportunities to sensitively share the Gospel.

I still have lots of boxes to unpack, including my 1600 books. Haven't even started on them. Big load of wash this morning and have to remember to take off line around 4pm. Hope it doesn't shower. We've had lots of rain this week. Some of Qld is in flood, like my hometown of Bundaberg (4 hours north of Brisbane).

Oz

Yes, you're right of course. Baptism is not salvific. Even Catholics say that the baptized infant must, at some point in his life, ACCEPT the baptism in order to be saved.

Accept means to become born again in our language.

Your granddaughter?
Beautiful house...

If that IS your granddaughter, she looks like a really nice girl.
God bless you and them also.

 

[Stranger]

I'm not seeking approval!!
Do you believe God picks who goes to heaven or hell...
Or do believe we have a say in where we end up?

A simple answer to your questions is yes, and yes. God chooses, and, we choose. (John 6:37,44)

My more involved explanation is this. God knows those who are His. It is not as though He is sitting in heaven and saying I pick this one and this one I don't. He knows all who are His and who are not His. And those who are His are the lost. Those who are not His are not lost because they never were His. (John 8:21-24), (John 8:47), (John 10:26)

Stranger

 

[GodsGrace]

A simple answer to your questions is yes, and yes. God chooses, and, we choose. (John 6:37,44)

My more involved explanation is this. God knows those who are His. It is not as though He is sitting in heaven and saying I pick this one and this one I don't. He knows all who are His and who are not His. And those who are His are the lost. Those who are not His are not lost because they never were His. (John 821-24), (John 8:47), (John 10:26)

Stranger

Sounds ok.
God has no time.
He knew who would choose Him.
The important part of this is that we DO get to choose.
However we want to then understand it is fine with me.

 

[Stranger]

Sounds ok.
God has no time.
He knew who would choose Him.
The important part of this is that we DO get to choose.
However we want to then understand it is fine with me.

It may sound ok, yet you know we are different here. You are emphasizing the human choice. When you say, "He knew who would choose Him", it appears as though God looked ahead and saw those who would choose Him and thus He chose them. But that is not what I am saying, or what I believe Scripture is saying.

Those who choose Him, are those who are from the beginning of Him. Our choice is the product of who we are already. Just like the choice of those who reject God and Christ, is the product of who they are...not of Him.

We were never children of the devil. We were always children of God. We just didn't know it, until we came to faith in Christ. Yes, we were children of wrath, just as those who are not of God, but never children of the devil.

Stranger

 

[GodsGrace]

It may sound ok, yet you know we are different here. You are emphasizing the human choice. When you say, "He knew who would choose Him", it appears as though God looked ahead and saw those who would choose Him and thus He chose them. But that is not what I am saying, or what I believe Scripture is saying.

Those who choose Him, are those who are from the beginning of Him. Our choice is the product of who we are already. Just like the choice of those who reject God and Christ, is the product of who they are...not of Him.

We were never children of the devil. We were always children of God. We just didn't know it, until we came to faith in Christ. Yes, we were children of wrath, just as those who are not of God, but never children of the devil.

Stranger

I'm sorry Stranger. I don't understand.
I really don't know what you believe - I can only go by what I THINK you are saying.

We are all children of God. God loves His creation and He loves every single person on earth and wishes for each one to be saved.
There's scripture for this. I won't post any verses right now unless you wish so.

However, we are not all SONS OF GOD. Not every one of us chooses God. Those who do not choose God end up being children of satan.
John 8:42-44
Jesus says those that do not love Jesus are the children of satan.
I do try to reconcile that God loves the whole world but not all choose Him, so Childr of God and Sons of God is of my own creation just to make you understand my belief in this matter.

Now, if you're getting some Calvinistic beliefs into this and saying that God predestined who would be saved and who wouldn't then, yes, we can separate right here.

The God I know does not send anyone to hell except those who wish to go there. If you think God CHOSE persons to be saved, that means HE CHOSE all the others to hell. If this is the God you love and serve, Good Luck. I don't.

 

[Stranger]

I'm sorry Stranger. I don't understand.
I really don't know what you believe - I can only go by what I THINK you are saying.

We are all children of God. God loves His creation and He loves every single person on earth and wishes for each one to be saved.
There's scripture for this. I won't post any verses right now unless you wish so.

However, we are not all SONS OF GOD. Not every one of us chooses God. Those who do not choose God end up being children of satan.
John 8:42-44
Jesus says those that do not love Jesus are the children of satan.
I do try to reconcile that God loves the whole world but not all choose Him, so Childr of God and Sons of God is of my own creation just to make you understand my belief in this matter.

Now, if you're getting some Calvinistic beliefs into this and saying that God predestined who would be saved and who wouldn't then, yes, we can separate right here.

The God I know does not send anyone to hell except those who wish to go there. If you think God CHOSE persons to be saved, that means HE CHOSE all the others to hell. If this is the God you love and serve, Good Luck. I don't.

I would say we are not all children of God. We are all created by God, but not all are His children. 'Sons of God' speaks to our mature sonship placment. (Gal. 3:25-4:9)

God is love, but God doesn't love everyone. (Rom. 9:11-14) God would have all to be saved, but all won't be saved. Those who are not saved are those who are not of Him.

Indeed, no one will go to hell or the lake of fire unless they reject God and Christ. And those who are not of God will reject God and Christ. Not because he picked them so, but because they are not of Him. They don't want hell, but they don't want God either.

Consider this. Something occurred at the fall which allowed satans seed also to be produced in the family of man. (Gen. 3:15) "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed...." Adam and Eve were of God, children of God. Sons of God. And had they not fallen and procreated they would have had nothing but the children of God produced. But because of the fall, another seed is introduced who are not of God, never were of God, never will be of God.

Again, God doesn't look down and pick some. Before we are born we are already of God or not of God. You don't have to agree, just understand I am making a difference between getting picked and being of God.

Stranger

 

[GodsGrace]

I would say we are not all children of God. We are all created by God, but not all are His children. 'Sons of God' speaks to our mature sonship placment. (Gal. 3:25-4:9)

God is love, but God doesn't love everyone. (Rom. 9:11-14) God would have all to be saved, but all won't be saved. Those who are not saved are those who are not of Him.

Indeed, no one will go to hell or the lake of fire unless they reject God and Christ. And those who are not of God will reject God and Christ. Not because he picked them so, but because they are not of Him. They don't want hell, but they don't want God either.

Consider this. Something occurred at the fall which allowed satans seed also to be produced in the family of man. (Gen. 3:15) "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed...." Adam and Eve were of God, children of God. Sons of God. And had they not fallen and procreated they would have had nothing but the children of God produced. But because of the fall, another seed is introduced who are not of God, never were of God, never will be of God.

Again, God doesn't look down and pick some. Before we are born we are already of God or not of God. You don't have to agree, just understand I am making a difference between getting picked and being of God.

Stranger

I know I don't have to agree!
I just never heard of what you're saying.
I've heard some stuff on this forum I've never heard before and I've been around a long time.

So what's the difference between being picked by God (Calvinism)
and being of God from the beginning?

HOW did we get to be of God from the beginning?
If we didn't CHOOSE, because we weren't around back then,
WHO picked us?

 

[Stranger]

I know I don't have to agree!
I just never heard of what you're saying.
I've heard some stuff on this forum I've never heard before and I've been around a long time.

So what's the difference between being picked by God (Calvinism)
and being of God from the beginning?

HOW did we get to be of God from the beginning?
If we didn't CHOOSE, because we weren't around back then,
WHO picked us?

You didn't get to choose who your parents were. You were born of them. They in turn didn't pick you. You were of them. This is what I am saying we as children of God are. We are of Him, not picked out from a large mass of people.

There are those born into this life that are of Him and there are those born into this life who are not of Him. They are of their father the devil. (John 8:42-47), (John 10:26)

Being of God occurs before you are born into the human race.

Stranger